MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Features at diagnosis of 324 patients with acromegaly did not change from 1981 to 2006: acromegaly remains under‐recognized and under‐diagnosed

2009· article· en· W2067299067 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Endocrinology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPituitary Gland Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsAcromegalyMedicineDiabetes mellitusDiseaseInternal medicineRetrospective cohort studyPediatricsCarpal tunnel syndromeComorbiditySurgeryEndocrinologyGrowth hormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, acromegaly evaded diagnosis until in its clinically obvious later stages when treatment is more difficult. Over the last 25 years diagnostic tests have improved, but whether clinical disease detection also improved was unknown, so we tested if disease severity at diagnosis had changed from 1981 to 2006. METHODS: Data on 324 consecutive acromegaly patients presenting from 1981 to 2006 at two New York City hospitals were collected by retrospective review (n = 324) and by interview (n = 200). The main complaint, acromegaly associated comorbidities, signs, symptoms, healthcare providers visited, preoperative GH and IGF-I levels and pituitary tumour size at diagnosis were compared in patients presenting in the earlier vs. later halves of the time period. RESULTS: Times from symptom onset to diagnosis were 5.9 year (early) vs. 5.2 year (late; P = NS). At diagnosis, 96% of early and late groups had facial feature changes and/or hand/foot enlargement. Comorbidities included hypertension 37% (early) vs. 36% (late), carpal tunnel syndrome (24%vs. 24%), sleep apnoea (13%vs. 29%; P < 0.01), osteoarthritis (25%vs. 23%) and diabetes mellitus (18%vs. 15%); each patient had 1.2 (early) vs. 1.3 (late; P = 0.53) comorbidities. Groups were similar in signs, symptoms, tumour size, GH and IGF-I. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical, biochemical and tumour size characteristics at diagnosis of acromegaly patients were unchanged from 1981 to 2006. Most patients still have marked manifestations of acromegaly at diagnosis, suggesting that acromegaly remains clinically under-recognized. Healthcare professionals should more commonly consider acromegaly, which can lead to earlier diagnosis and better treatment outcome.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it